Put 'fair use' right in UK copyright law, says NCC

I have been advised of another very interesting article on UK Copyright issues.

Just 19% of people are aware that they break the law in the UK by copying a CD to their computer or iPod, according to the National Consumer Council (NCC), which wants to see a "fair use" right inserted in the country's "absurd" copyright laws.
The survey was carried out for the NCC by YouGov. It found that 55% of consumers copy their CDs to other devices. Most of us are unwitting infringers: three in five Britons think that copying for personal use is legal. Other countries – including the US and most of the EU – provide a right to reproduce copyrighted material for private use.

Copying for personal use is not a new thing. For years, people copied their vinyl records to cassette to play in their cars. Few people realised they infringed copyright in doing so – and the music industry didn't care. The advent of digital copying gave the industry more cause for concern; but it has always seemed unreasonable to ask consumers to pay twice for the same music and the industry has focused its attention on stopping those who make their music available to many others without permission. But the responses of 2,135 adults in the YouGov research gauge the lack of consumer awareness to the law.

The survey supports NCC's recent response to the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. Andrew Gowers, formerly the editor of the Financial Times, was tasked by HM Treasury to lead this independent review of intellectual property rights in the UK. A public consultation ran between February and April.

The NCC's submission to the Gowers Review argues that copyright law is out of step with modern life and discriminates unfairly against consumers, putting unrealistic limits on their private listening and viewing habits.

Jill Johnstone, author of NCC’s submission, said: "We need to shake up the copyright law to incorporate consumers’ ‘fair use’ rights – including the right to copy for private use."

She added that the current long periods of copyright protection need reforming, too.
The period of protection for copyright has been increased before, allowing not only the creators (or the companies that have bought their rights) to receive rewards, but also their descendants. Copyright in artistic works (including literary, dramatic and musical works) now lasts until 70 years after the death of the author, while films’ copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the last surviving major contributor to their artistic character (director, composer, screenwriter). Sound recordings are currently protected for 50 years from ‘publication’, although there is an increasingly vocal campaign to extend this period. Broadcasts are protected for 50 years, while their ‘published’ editions are protected for 25 years.

"Whether for films, literary or musical works, sound recordings or broadcasts, the length of all copyright terms should be reduced to fit more closely the time period over which most financial returns are normally made," said Johnstone. "The current campaign by the music industry to extend copyright terms for sound recordings beyond 50 years has no justification."

The NCC says that music companies generally make returns on material in a matter of years, not decades. "Current terms already provide excessive protection of intellectual property rights at a cost to consumers," she added.

Here's wat a recent article on theRegister says about the subject of copying your own 'owned' CD's:

The British Phonographic Industry- the UK's equivalent of the Recording Industry Ass. of America - is prepared to discuss the issue of personal CD ripping. Despite what most consumers believe, it is technically illegal for UK consumers to make copies of their own CDs.

It is believed many within the BPI accept that this is a farcical legal situation, but fears over file-sharing - which the BPI has actively pursued - mean some are unwilling to allow CDs to be ripped onto computers as this could be seen as a first step to file-sharing. Reports suggested the BPI is offering full support to ending this anomaly, but a spokesman for the BPI told us the story related to submissions made to the Gowers Review - a government probe into wider intellectual property issues. He said the BPI was open to discussion on the issue. BPI spokesman Matt Philips said: "Our submission to the Gowers Review does not say that the law should be changed to allow private copying. The submission states that we are willing to explore options to clarify what behaviour should be deemed acceptable for the consumer. "We look forward to having that discussion with the Gowers team, and to reaching a framework which protects copyright effectively and allows consumers to take advantage of new technology fairly."

The review, headed by ex-FT editor Andrew Gowers, is collecting evidence until 21 April 2006. Its report will be presented to the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the autumn. ®

Click to expand...

They have also commissioned a poll that spotlighted the folly of current copyright law in the UK. Fifty-nine (59%) per cent of respondents in the National Consumer Council (NCC) commissioned poll thought copying their own CDs was perfectly legal, and 55 per cent said they have done so.!!!

Would or could this "Fair Use" also apply to legally bought and owned sets of music? So would it be legal then to copy parts?
Since last year, we have a system in Belgium that requires every band to pay a certain amount (a maximum of 250 euros per year) to have the right to make photocopies of original parts. Of course the band still needs to own the original set. The photocopies are meant for rehearsals and to distribute to the players, so that the originals can be kept in a "safe" place.
A "fair use" law for this could do away with this fee....

Under the US system, copying parts is NOT covered by "Fair Use". There are a few progressive publishers who have figured out that it doesn't make sense for them to print multiple copies of the same part and who therefore provide a single copy of each part in the published set, with an express limited licence to make copies for use of the band purchasing the set.

In fact, copying for personal reasons is not actually covered by Fair Use in the US, either. In US copyright law, it is legal for individuals (not organizations or corporations) to copy material as long as it is for "personal use" and it is not used by or distributed to any other person. So I can copy my own legally purchased sheet music, but I cannot give it to any other person for any length of time. I can legally rip my CDs to my iPod, but I cannot legally share those files with anyone else.

Under US law, the Fair Use exception covers things like quotes in scholarly publications or academic research, quotes in revews or critiques, news reporting, etc. It does not cover copies of entire works.

Would or could this "Fair Use" also apply to legally bought and owned sets of music? So would it be legal then to copy parts?
Since last year, we have a system in Belgium that requires every band to pay a certain amount (a maximum of 250 euros per year) to have the right to make photocopies of original parts. Of course the band still needs to own the original set. The photocopies are meant for rehearsals and to distribute to the players, so that the originals can be kept in a "safe" place.
A "fair use" law for this could do away with this fee....

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Rob Collinson of Broadnib Music was telling me that he's started an initiative where he sends out his music in printable form on CDR. My understanding is that the Band can then print as many parts as they need - obviously, the licence agreement should stop redistribution....

The latter's a bit of a moot point - if someone's going to copy something, then they'll do it anyway be it off a disc or by photocopying.

Interestingly, Rob Collinson of Broadnib Music was telling me that he's started an initiative where he sends out his music in printable form on CDR. My understanding is that the Band can then print as many parts as they need - obviously, the licence agreement should stop redistribution....

The latter's a bit of a moot point - if someone's going to copy something, then they'll do it anyway be it off a disc or by photocopying.

Click to expand...

The current "photocopy licensing" system is set up by the society of tumusic publishers SEMU (www.semu.be). Unfortunately, they don't seem te be so enlightened as the publishers that you describe...

Interestingly, Rob Collinson of Broadnib Music was telling me that he's started an initiative where he sends out his music in printable form on CDR. My understanding is that the Band can then print as many parts as they need - obviously, the licence agreement should stop redistribution....

The latter's a bit of a moot point - if someone's going to copy something, then they'll do it anyway be it off a disc or by photocopying.

Click to expand...

If he edited the file and put the band's name accross the top before putting on CD, this would go some way to prevent copying of full sets for another band.

Interestingly, Rob Collinson of Broadnib Music was telling me that he's started an initiative where he sends out his music in printable form on CDR. My understanding is that the Band can then print as many parts as they need - obviously, the licence agreement should stop redistribution....

The latter's a bit of a moot point - if someone's going to copy something, then they'll do it anyway be it off a disc or by photocopying.

Would or could this "Fair Use" also apply to legally bought and owned sets of music? So would it be legal then to copy parts?
Since last year, we have a system in Belgium that requires every band to pay a certain amount (a maximum of 250 euros per year) to have the right to make photocopies of original parts. Of course the band still needs to own the original set.

Click to expand...

There is a (I think) a clause in the 1988 Act allowing "fair dealing", which allows for the copying part of a of a publication for private study or research - for instance if you needed to refer to an Encyclopedia Britannica article for an essay and didn't want to buy the whole work. This also applies to printed music as far as I know. I know a lot of bands copy sets that they already own as a "backup" and currently this is illegal, but there is possible a (slightly dodgy) legal argument to be made that copying an individual part (e.g. solo horn) for home practice only constitutes "fair dealing".

As far as the original topic is concerned, the law works the other way as well. If you have a tape or LP that's a bit knackered and you remaster it using your PC to create a new CD, you are breaking the law. So of course I won't be doing any such thing in the near future with my old collection of band tapes that are not available on CD

As far as the original topic is concerned, the law works the other way as well. If you have a tape or LP that's a bit knackered and you remaster it using your PC to create a new CD, you are breaking the law. So of course I won't be doing any such thing in the near future with my old collection of band tapes that are not available on CD

Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect that the remastering process wouldn't be covered by fair use policy either as you'd be altering the original without the ower's permission. I'd guess that the fair use policy would imply the transfer to an alternative medium in an unaltered state.

There is a (I think) a clause in the 1988 Act allowing "fair dealing", which allows for the copying part of a of a publication for private study or research - for instance if you needed to refer to an Encyclopedia Britannica article for an essay and didn't want to buy the whole work. This also applies to printed music as far as I know. I know a lot of bands copy sets that they already own as a "backup" and currently this is illegal, but there is possible a (slightly dodgy) legal argument to be made that copying an individual part (e.g. solo horn) for home practice only constitutes "fair dealing".

Click to expand...

FWIW there was some detailed discussion on this point in another thread: